Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. We had a presentation from the approved housing bodies just before we rose for the summer recess. There was a general frustration among everybody around the table that we have not been able to resolve this problem, and I think it is a disappointment to everybody that the approved housing bodies have now been put on balance sheet. We need to find a resolution to that because, regardless of what anybody here says, unless we find an off-balance sheet model, we cannot invest in social or public housing to the degree that is needed to address the crisis we are in. In that regard, I will expand on a few issues based on the previous meeting and today's meeting and get some clarification on some matters.

My understanding, from both today and the previous meeting, is that any debt generated by an approved housing body, whether privately funded capital or State funded capital, is now all on balance sheet regardless of where it comes from. This is the nub of the problem that we must overcome. We have discussed the credit unions and talked about a figure of €3 billion, with €7 billion being available from credit union funding to invest in public housing. If approved housing bodies were to take that sum tomorrow morning and invest it in social housing, it would increase State debt by the same amount. As such, it would have a significant impact on fiscal space and on future delivery. While this change may not be impacting now, it is affecting the potential to use an off-balance sheet model to solve the housing crisis into the future. The priority is to find an off-balance sheet model if we are to genuinely address the housing crisis. The fiscal space is not big enough, no matter what way we do it.

Regarding the criteria, it is also frustrating that this can be achieved elsewhere in Europe but not here. Why is that the case? What is the fundamental difference between how we present our statistics and how the rest of Europe presents its statistics? The contractual arrangements, the financing and the risks are the three fundamental issues on which the Department is gathering data and presenting them to the CSO. I read in one of the reports that the borrowing of the approved housing bodies accounts for less than 1% of their expenditure. This means the State is funding the other 99%. That fundamental issue also needs to be addressed.

Is the capital debt a bigger factor in the decision than the fact that the local authorities decide who goes into the houses or the differential rent that applies? Is there any leverage in this regard? Which of the various criteria the Department is using have most impact on the final decision? Is capital the biggest criterion or is it the fact that local authorities have too much control over who goes into the houses and the types of houses that are built?

Do we fully understand how EUROSTAT and the CSO made their decision? If so, can we not just get on and address the issue? We can talk here all day, but unless we find an off-balance sheet model that can deliver social and affordable housing, we will not fix this crisis within our current fiscal space. We need private investment from the likes of credit unions to do it.